# C_2021217EN.01000401.xml

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Gdańsku — Poland) — AV

(Case C-221/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA - Article 8(2) and (4): - Article 17(1) and (2) - Article 19 - Taking into account, for the purposes of an aggregate sentence, of a conviction delivered in another Member State, which must be enforced in the Member State in which that judgment is delivered - Conditions - Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA - Article 3(3) - Concept of ‘interference with a sentence or its execution’ which must be taken into account in the event of new criminal proceedings initiated in a Member State other than that in which the ruling was delivered)

(2021/C 217/05)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Gdańsku

Parties to the main proceedings

AV

Intervening parties: Pomorski Wydział Zamiejscowy Departamentu do Spraw Przestępczości Zorganizowanej i Korupcji Prokuratury Krajowej

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The combined provisions of Article 8(2) to (4), Article 17(1) and (2) and Article 19 of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 must be interpreted as permitting the issue of an aggregate sentence covering not only one or more previous sentences handed down against the person concerned in the Member State in which that aggregate sentence is delivered, but also one or more sentences handed down against him or her in another Member State, which are enforced under that framework decision in the first Member State. Such an aggregate sentence cannot, however, lead to an adaptation of the duration or nature of those sentences which goes beyond the strict limits laid down in Article 8(2) to (4) of that framework decision, a breach of the obligation, imposed by Article 17(2) of that framework decision, to deduct the full period of deprivation of liberty already served, where appropriate, by the sentenced person in the issuing State, from the total duration of the deprivation of liberty to be served in the executing Member State, or to a review of the sentences imposed in another Member State, in breach of Article 19(2) of that framework decision; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The combined provisions of Article 8(2) to (4), Article 17(1) and (2) and Article 19 of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 must be interpreted as permitting the issue of an aggregate sentence covering not only one or more previous sentences handed down against the person concerned in the Member State in which that aggregate sentence is delivered, but also one or more sentences handed down against him or her in another Member State, which are enforced under that framework decision in the first Member State. Such an aggregate sentence cannot, however, lead to an adaptation of the duration or nature of those sentences which goes beyond the strict limits laid down in Article 8(2) to (4) of that framework decision, a breach of the obligation, imposed by Article 17(2) of that framework decision, to deduct the full period of deprivation of liberty already served, where appropriate, by the sentenced person in the issuing State, from the total duration of the deprivation of liberty to be served in the executing Member State, or to a review of the sentences imposed in another Member State, in breach of Article 19(2) of that framework decision;

| 2. | Article 3(3) of Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA of 24 July 2008 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, read in the light of recital 14 thereof, must be interpreted as permitting the issue of an aggregate sentence covering not only one or more previous convictions handed down against the person concerned in the Member State in which that aggregate sentence is delivered, but also one or more convictions handed down against him in another Member State and which are enforced, under Framework Decision 2008/909, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, in the first Member State, on condition that that aggregate sentence observes, in so far as concerns the latter convictions, the conditions and limits arising from Article 8(2) to (4), Article 17(2) and Article 19(2) of that framework decision 2008/909, as amended. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 3(3) of Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA of 24 July 2008 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, read in the light of recital 14 thereof, must be interpreted as permitting the issue of an aggregate sentence covering not only one or more previous convictions handed down against the person concerned in the Member State in which that aggregate sentence is delivered, but also one or more convictions handed down against him in another Member State and which are enforced, under Framework Decision 2008/909, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, in the first Member State, on condition that that aggregate sentence observes, in so far as concerns the latter convictions, the conditions and limits arising from Article 8(2) to (4), Article 17(2) and Article 19(2) of that framework decision 2008/909, as amended.

---

(1)  OJ C 280, 19.8.2019.

---